mk1-forum.net

As I have previously posted, we were seeking clarification on the Masters' stance concerning the eligibility of using Swiftune's new crankshaft/rods/piston components in engines powering Minis in their series. I am informed that their position is in line with that of John Hopwood, who states categorically that 'they are not legal for races where cars run under the Appendix K technical specification'.

Ron advised me that Masters are keen to maintain eligibility status with other similar series such as U2TC, so competitors at Spa for instance, can enter both organisers' races without the need for an engine change. Another factor is to keep component costs down. They are apparently investigating the use of an endoscope so internal components can be viewed via the distributor hole to monitor eligibility compliance!

Inventive or what?"

Well thats cleared that up then !!!

Will you be at Oulton Mike ?

The plan is to run Paul's new car this season but inevitably, whilst it is only just a week away from completion, we will avoid the usual temptation of avoiding testing and going straight into a race. We want to try various suspension settings so will book a proper test before using in anger.

His engine is still in my car so there is a chance we will run that, I need to speak to him. I think we're both pleased with Ron's stance on this issue, we certainly don't want to spend another £3k on must have components in an effort to be near the front of the field.

As for my car I wanted to revert back to a 970cc with either one of my Arden 8 ports or the new Weslake head on TJ injection.......or maybe I'll build another 1293cc motor?

I welcome any move towards keeping things legal, but I believe you might be on an uphill grind

What I don't understand is how it is outside the scope of the regs compared with other cranks (because it's still 3 main bearings), but more quizzically, how come no-one raised an eyebrow before. The attached pic is from Race Retro 2010. Looks awfully like the same crank to an amateur like me. Are H section rods/ damper/ oil filter head within the regs too?

Tim Harber wrote:I welcome any move towards keeping things legal, but I believe you might be on an uphill grind

What I don't understand is how it is outside the scope of the regs compared with other cranks (because it's still 3 main bearings), but more quizzically, how come no-one raised an eyebrow before. The attached pic is from Race Retro 2010. Looks awfully like the same crank to an amateur like me. Are H section rods/ damper/ oil filter head within the regs too?

You forgot the A+ block and blanked off water pump.

I asked Swifty about this and he has NO intentions of promoting it to App K motor builders, purely free formula and anyway...................



...............it's all been done before! Or at least the same counterbalancing theory with different methodology.

P.S. and when did the Caterham 7 on the stand on Friday, turn into a Fiesta yellow Mini ??

I think it took the Mini about a year to turn into a Chaterham 7

Tim,
I have no agenda here personally as I don't intend to run my car except maybe on odd occasions. The issue was raised by my co-driver Paul Tarry as we are building a car for him and evidently he wants to be competitive and every performance benefit is required to achieve that, if legal.

I am however keen that if technical regulations exist, they should be adhered to. That being said, I confess that my car has run, strictly speaking illegal Arrow rods and a dog gearbox, but only after I got confirmation of the "blind eye" approach from Julius Thurgood when I first came to Masters.

I have previously voiced my opinion that in terms of availability and reliability some latitude needs to be given provided there is no performance advantage.

The benefit of this crank/rods/piston set up is that the better balance provides for higher revs and with the right camshaft more power. The longer rods mean the piston is a TDC for longer, also beneficial for combustion.

To answer your question as to eligibility, Appendix K says broadly that these components need to be to the same material and dimensional specification as per the original components. Therefore no additional counter weights.

I applaud Nick's position that he is not promoting these to FIA customers but no doubt someone will attempt to use them, if not already, but it would appear Masters will be checking.

YMJ wrote:P.S. and when did the Caterham 7 on the stand on Friday, turn into a Fiesta yellow Mini ??

2010

Most importantly that Caterham was (I think) an early pre clamshell wing Lotus 7 with a Downton engine

Downton were a Lotus agent at some stage when they offered the 7 with a choice of A series or 100E engine as I recall

Hallo overtehere,
Lots of interesting reading. All these questions are in the daily talk in Scandinavia as well. The other day the Swedish ASN clearified thet the total cost of the HTP was only the cost of the scrutineer. Here the HTP cost 5000SEK and when you have deducted tax, social costs, the form, postages to FIA and return, VAT plus travel it ends up to a net income of 1000SEK for the job. So,
they claimed that FIA got nill. Also a new cost of 1350SEK every five year. 100SEK=9 Pounds S.
When a race is presented to apply to App.K. you MUST have a HTP and by having that ducument off course the car MUST comply with that framework of regs. and homologation papers. So what is the problem. If the parts wanted NOT are homologated it is not OK to use them. Still in TMS dog box and electronic ignition is OK. WHY! In the start I remember Ron told me the Weber was OK as well. The funny thing is that S.U.´s come from England and Weber from Italy. So, the english know more about Weber than the S.U.´s.
Also, to build a for example 970S App.K don´t be amased if the total cost will excced 50K Pounds
if you want a world beater. All short cuts doest contribute and they are not in the frame work of the regulation.
Best Regards
Tommy Jagerwall
Sweden

Tim Harber wrote:

YMJ wrote:P.S. and when did the Caterham 7 on the stand on Friday, turn into a Fiesta yellow Mini ??

2010

Most importantly that Caterham was (I think) an early pre clamshell wing Lotus 7 with a Downton engine

Downton were a Lotus agent at some stage when they offered the 7 with a choice of A series or 100E engine as I recall

Daniel Richmond's A Series engined Lotus Seven Series 1:

Also some stuff in the archive about it;

http://mk1-performance-conversions.co.u ... /dr7_2.jpg

Downton were only involved with Lotus for a matter of months. They cut off all links when Buntie discovered that Colin Champan was really not "one of her sort of people" For that read not posh